Sign in with Facebook
Doug's Reviews > Milkman
Milkman
by
by
Well, that was...unpleasant! I usually can read a 352 page novel in two to three days... this took me a tortuous ten, as on several occasions I looked at the book and just had no interest in reading any of it. I was sorely tempted to DNF it, but as a Booker completest, I rallied myself to get through. I'm going to disappoint some by not giving this one of my infamous parodic takedown reviews, but I am going to have to pass, since this book not only sapped my creative juices, but at several points, my will to live.
Others have bizarrely mentioned how funny this is, but I can only assume they find cancer, boils, and diarrhea equally hilarious. The non-plot barely contains enough incidents to hang a very short story upon, and Burns' going on and on and on about virtually nothing... and then repeating herself once again for page after page after page with no paragraph breaks, made me think she must be getting paid by the word.
At page 180, I mentioned this was reminding me of Proust (whose magnum opus I spent 8 miserable months reading in 1981 - up until now probably my most distressing reading experience) - and NOT in a good way. And on p. 231, she indeed mentions dear Marcel, so I am assuming she was attempting to outdo him in loquacious nonsensical verbiage with no payoffs.
So 1/2 a star for my unmasking her nefarious scheme ... and another 1/2 star for the gorgeous cover.... it's going at the bottom of this year's Booker rankings (... at least 'Snap' had characters with more than a single dimension ... and a plot!).
PS...so, of course, as in 3 out of the past 5 years, my 13th ranked out of 13 from the Booker longlist has taken the prize... but at least in previous years I found SOMETHING to admire in those winners... this year? Zippo! Nada! Doo-dah! This may be one of the most boring, depressing, dispiriting books ever put to paper!
PPS: I am still puzzled/amused at the continued hoopla about this piece of shite by its myriad cult-like followers, who persist in clogging my feed day after day, all trying to outdo one another in their effusive encomiums. I have now coined a new term to describe such: 'Literary Circle Jerk'. Drink the Kool Aid, kiddos!
PPPS: So apparently this is the unkillable novel, having now also inexplicably won the National Book Critics Circle Award. And newly longlisted for the IMPAC (Dublin Literary Award)! I STILL won't concede that there is ANYTHING worthy in this mess, and would suggest that some horrid mass hypnosis is sweeping the book awards.
Others have bizarrely mentioned how funny this is, but I can only assume they find cancer, boils, and diarrhea equally hilarious. The non-plot barely contains enough incidents to hang a very short story upon, and Burns' going on and on and on about virtually nothing... and then repeating herself once again for page after page after page with no paragraph breaks, made me think she must be getting paid by the word.
At page 180, I mentioned this was reminding me of Proust (whose magnum opus I spent 8 miserable months reading in 1981 - up until now probably my most distressing reading experience) - and NOT in a good way. And on p. 231, she indeed mentions dear Marcel, so I am assuming she was attempting to outdo him in loquacious nonsensical verbiage with no payoffs.
So 1/2 a star for my unmasking her nefarious scheme ... and another 1/2 star for the gorgeous cover.... it's going at the bottom of this year's Booker rankings (... at least 'Snap' had characters with more than a single dimension ... and a plot!).
PS...so, of course, as in 3 out of the past 5 years, my 13th ranked out of 13 from the Booker longlist has taken the prize... but at least in previous years I found SOMETHING to admire in those winners... this year? Zippo! Nada! Doo-dah! This may be one of the most boring, depressing, dispiriting books ever put to paper!
PPS: I am still puzzled/amused at the continued hoopla about this piece of shite by its myriad cult-like followers, who persist in clogging my feed day after day, all trying to outdo one another in their effusive encomiums. I have now coined a new term to describe such: 'Literary Circle Jerk'. Drink the Kool Aid, kiddos!
PPPS: So apparently this is the unkillable novel, having now also inexplicably won the National Book Critics Circle Award. And newly longlisted for the IMPAC (Dublin Literary Award)! I STILL won't concede that there is ANYTHING worthy in this mess, and would suggest that some horrid mass hypnosis is sweeping the book awards.
1205 likes · Like
�
flag
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Milkman.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 23, 2018
– Shelved
July 23, 2018
– Shelved as:
to-read
August 23, 2018
–
Started Reading
August 30, 2018
–
51.14%
"This is reminding me of Proust - and not in a good way. By that, I mean it takes 20 pages of navel-gazing nonsensical verbiage to say next to NOTHING!!! It is inert to the point of numbness, ... if it wasn't for the fact I've made it to the halfway point and it's Booker nominated, I'd DNF it. At least Snap had a plot and characters... this is just unending torture. It's going at the bottom of my rankings"
page
180
September 1, 2018
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 434 (434 new)
message 1:
by
Ace
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Aug 30, 2018 06:08PM
Doug, we are totally on the same long winded page.
reply
|
flag
Hooray - the 2 star Doug recommendation algorithm isn't dead after all :-)
I'm looking forward to the review!
I really did find much of this book very funny (the only book on the longlist that made me laugh out loud) but in a very British gallows humour kind of a way. And if it does as well as Reservoir 13 I will be glad we disagreed again...
I think any author would take a comparison to Proust. Simply wonderful book.
... and like R13 it is much more about atmosphere than plot.
So sweet - 1/2 point for the cover etc. But yeh, not read, and not likely to either. Why do Booker judges think experimental is good lit. Do they think they're gonna miss the next James Joyce?
I would hope that worrying about missing the next James Joyce does indeed keep the judges awake at night. From some of their other choices I fear they worry more about missing the next Girl ona Train.
The Proust comparison is surely the only laugh-out-loud thing about this. Nice review Doug!
LOL, okay this review almost made the book worth reading . . .almost . . .
"So 1/2 a point for my unmasking her nefarious scheme..." - so half a point is actually not for Burns, but for yourself? Love that! :-)
Meike wrote: ""So 1/2 a point for my unmasking her nefarious scheme..." - so half a point is actually not for Burns, but for yourself? Love that! :-)"... and the OTHER half point is actually not for Burns either, but for the book designer! :-) I should raise it another half point though, for the 'walking-while-reading' conceit, since I plead guilty to that as well!
I’m still working my way through it and I thought it was just me. The one redeeming grace of this book is the portrayal of an incredibly dysfunctional society. I’m reading on kindle so I don’t have much of a grasp on how large a book this really is.In terms of the comparison with Proust while I felt they are equally dense Proust was far more interesting. I just loved Odette.
Doug wrote: "I should raise it another half point though, for the 'walking-while-reading' conceit, since I plead guilty to that as well!..."I find it funny though that some people (not you!) seem to miss that this behavior needs to be seen in the general context of the protagonist ignoring her surroundings, of trying to opt out of the conflict surrounding her, of staying out of her own maybe-life - I feel like some readers just thought it's super quirky and didn't see the sadness behind it in the case of the protagonist.
Lol I thought I was hard on this. Oddly enough, I disliked the book for different reasons. I disliked the style because it seemed unjustified and padded with extra words and I did not think getting into the narrator's mind offered much that couldn't be told more straightforwardly.But what really bothered me were elements that I felt did not contribute to a whole, like the slaughter of the dogs, the finding of the cat's head, the sometimes boyfriend's homosexuality, the dancing couple. They seemed sensationalistic and absurdist to catch the reader's attention but did not really fit into the story.
Sam wrote: "Lol I thought I was hard on this. Oddly enough, I disliked the book for different reasons. I disliked the style because it seemed unjustified and padded with extra words and I did not think getting..."Yet you still gave it 4 stars?!! I intensely disliked the animal abuse also, but have enumerated my objections to that in other works ad nauseum, so felt like I was (pardon the expression) beating a dead horse. And I wasn't sure if the whole thing with maybe-boyfriend and chef was latent homophobia or not, so let that go too. But my main objection was to the absurdly ornate, repetitious and lengthy sentences/paragraphs ... and the fact it was just plain BORING!
There seems to be a theme of animal abuse on this year's Booker - for example "In a Mad and Furious City" has a dog being hung as part of past gang/race wars in London.
Gumble's Yard wrote: "There seems to be a theme of animal abuse on this year's Booker - for example "In a Mad and Furious City" has a dog being hung as part of past gang/race wars in London."Thanks for the head's up since I just started the Gunaratne.
I bumped every book I read a star just for making the Booker longlist, figuring they need the help. Reminds me I should do the same for those read and starred before they made the list.
Doug wrote: "Gumble's Yard wrote: "There seems to be a theme of animal abuse on this year's Booker - for example "In a Mad and Furious City" has a dog being hung as part of past gang/race wars in London."Than..."
Its actually a remarkably similar story, ie mixed up in "tit for tat" violence - in this case a group of Teddy Boys use their dogs to attack immigrants who strike back by hanging one of the dogs (if I remember it correctly).
I think there is a good argument for bumping every book on the Booker longlist down a star (or at least rounding down) because they don't need the help. Booker longlist automatically equals significant increase in sales.
Meike wrote: .....of the protagonist ignoring her surroundings, of trying to opt out of the conflict surrounding her .."In fact opting out of the entire 20th century - as she is very clear that she only reads 19th century books, as a protest against the violence that surrounds her.
I wouldn't say she protests - she is trying to escape to the literay world. She is no acting, but hiding.
This was one I wanted to read :)
You will love it Jackie.
Thanks, Doug. Wasn't sure seeing all the 4 or 5 stars, but now doubt if I will bother.
This seems to be the most polarizing of any of the long OR shortlist... MANY people love it and have it as their first choice, but I just found it incredibly dull and boring.
This was the only book on the longlist that really caught my attention (besides from writers I already knew and wanted to try like Richard Powers, Rachel Cusk, and Michael O.). Now I have to go and see what other books you've given only a single start to! Congrats on now being free of this book.
Marc wrote: "This was the only book on the longlist that really caught my attention (besides from writers I already knew and wanted to try like Richard Powers, Rachel Cusk, and Michael O.). Now I have to go and..."Well, I hope you have more success with it than I did... I always cringe when people take MY word for a book's worth... MANY GR friends just loved it ... and more power to them!
I rarely give one star, as even the most execrable book must have SOMETHING worthy about it, if it gets published.... but this was sheer unmitigated torture to get through... so couldn't even muster enough enthusiasm for that extra star!
The life of a Booker completist is not without its suffering! :D
I still suspect your view will hold some sway with the judges, but I am cautiously optimistic that this one could win, and if it does it will be the best winner for years...
Hugh wrote: "I still suspect your view will hold some sway with the judges, but I am cautiously optimistic that this one could win, and if it does it will be the best winner for years..."If it's any consolation, Sellout, Narrow Road and Seven Killings were ALL also at the bottom of my rankings in the respective years THEY won.... so if my 'jinx' holds out, you might be looking at a Milkman win! :-)
I would agree on two of those and Sellout was towards the bottom for me. But as you know I like this one.
I liked 7 Killings and Narrow Road, but agree on The Sellout. It is always entertaining to read the other side of the debate...
Yeah, sounds like something I should definitely skip!
"There seems to be a theme of animal abuse on this year's Booker - for example "In a Mad and Furious City" has a dog being hung as part of past gang/race wars in London."Oh no This may sap my resolve to finish Mad and Furious City.
Thank you! I’m not the only one. There was some solid literature in the longlist this year!
I put this aside numerous times and then skipped from 50% read to 90%, just to try to get some sense of what the author was trying to do - and it was like the story hadn't moved forward between 50 and 90. I was glad to be done with it.It is a stunning cover though, to be sure.
So it's not just me. Many thanks.
Nope...I seriously have to question the mental health of those who think this is the greatest book of the 21st Century...whatever drugs they are on, I want some!!!
Ouch. Sorry to see this book fall short, Doug. I’ll put this on the bottom of my Booker TBR list...
I too thought of Proust while reading the book, especially the conversation that takes place in the 10-minute area when the narrator holds a beheaded cat - a conversation that only comprises a few moments in real time, but takes up 20 pages in the book! However, I found the writing comic and entertaining. Here are examples: 1) When the narrator describes her sister's swearing, she paints the picture of a literal comic-book-style speech bubble (“Sister exploded into advanced asterisks, into percentage marks, crossword symbol signs, ampersands, circumflexes, hash keys, dollar signs, all that ‘If You See Kay� blue French language.�), 2) When the sisters reject first-brother-in-law "directly, indirectly, politely, fuck off-ly", 3) When the French language students suddenly notice street trees for the first time ("Maybe we did have street trees but they must have been put in half an hour earlier"), and many more examples! That said, I hear the humour comes out more strongly in the audio version of the book?
But_i_thought_ wrote: "I too thought of Proust while reading the book, especially the conversation that takes place in the 10-minute area when the narrator holds a beheaded cat - a conversation that only comprises a few ..."My GR buddy Lee tried the audio book after two failed attempts at reading the damn thing... and said it was pretty disheartening also (I'm paraphrasing). The only thing that would make me even attempt the audio is as a cure for my insomnia! :-)
Excellent review, Doug. I loved this line, referencing Proust... "so I am assuming she was attempting to outdo him in loquacious nonsensical verbiage with no payoffs. "
Thank you. I couldn’t finish it and after reading your review I don’t feel so bad about myself.
Completely agree with this review. This book was an absolute chore. I did laugh once or twice but for the most part I was irritated about what was being said over 2 pages which could have been said in two sentences.
Thanx, Jade... I seriously can't fathom ANYONE actually enjoying this slogfest ... but several GR friends keep extolling its limited virtues ... I think it's a case of 'Emperor's New Clothes'!
Only on page 25 and finding it a lot like churning your own cheese. I've been wondering what I'm not getting. Maybe I'm just bored.
Bail NOW!! Save yourself!! It only gets worse!
